Hi Gary - in my opinion, object 1 and 2
could not be combined as they are very different use cases. Object 1 is essentially "the event
as it was seen". Object 2 is the result of an analytic process
- which may have dozens to or thousands of the Object 1 rolled into it.
This is why to me, Object 1 is simply
sightings of observed data (IE we already have this). Object 2 however
can't be communicated that way in it's current form. It is much more than
observed data. - Jason Keirstead STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From:
"Katz, Gary CTR
DC3\DCCI" <
Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil> To:
Sarah Kelley <
Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> Date:
09/11/2017 12:01 PM Subject:
[cti-stix] RE:
Current thoughts on Event Object Sent by:
<
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> Sarah, I think this
is a nice breakdown of the various types of event use cases. I’d
be interested in seeing whether objects 3-5 could be combined into one
object type and object 1 and 2 would be a separate object type (perhaps
covered under some variation of a Sighting or Observed Data.. maybe?) One of the big
reasons for this is if we have 5 different object types, people will invariantly
not understand the distinction and use the wrong object type, creating
issues on the receiving side and on correlation between events. I
would state that Object 3 should be the information you wish to send to
another organization concerning an investigation, but the internals of
how that investigation workflows occur would not be included within STIX.
The reporting agency in object 4 therefore would just be one of the organizations
receiving the information. It also means that the tools do not need
to reformat information differently for mandatory reporting rather than
a standard investigation. Our organization
has similar reporting requirements as US CERT. My plan was to take
the event object and add custom properties to it to support the Object
4 use case. Since the reporting requirements will differ for each
agency, it would be very difficult for OASIS to have an influence on what
each agency (whether US or foreign) would wish to receive, I’d suggest
keeping it at the custom property level. The useful cyber intelligence
data though should mirror what is anyway useful for sending in object 3. Object 5 I see as
mainly being useful when you can add context to why you are grouping the
stuff together, in which case it starts to look close to Object 3. -Gary From:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of Sarah Kelley Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:41 AM To:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [cti-stix] Current thoughts on Event Object CTI-TC, I have made an attempt to summarize the
discussion to date surrounding the Event object. I have tried to use the
diagrams that we’ve been referencing that show several workflows and where
I see the various SDOs we have been discussing. I think there are five separate things
that we’ve been talking about with regards to “Event”: Object 1) Some sort of front end device
sensing something. You could call this an alert, an event, a log line,
etc. Object 2) A somewhat more mature version
of the thing above. It may be one to one, but it may not be. There
may be many of Object #1 that make up one Object #2. Object 3) A way to document an incident/investigation
that is either ongoing or concluded. This may (or may not) have come from
an evolution out of an Object 1 or 2. Likely, most IR tools will not use
Object 3 directly, so it should probably be a sort of summary object that
can allow the results of an IR investigation to be linked back to all the
related data (like Objects 1 and 2, but also Actors, malware, etc) Object 4) Some sort of automated method
of reporting, for cases such as mandatory reporting (like to US CERT).
Object 5) A way to group a bunch of related
data together. I see these as five distinct SDOs. Objects
1 and 2 are very similar, and could be represented by one SDO, but
if that was the case, then the SDO would need to have a relationship type
of “this arglebargle is one of many arglebargles that make up this larger
arglebargle”. Object 1 has a lot of logistical overlap
with a Sighting. There would need to be some sort of deconfliction between
what properties were trying to be represented by Object 1 to make sure
it wasn’t just a duplicate of Sighting (which, by definition, is something
that was ‘seen’, just as Object 1 was described to be). This could also
just be an Observed Data object, if the it wasn’t actually “sighted”.
Object 2 is something that would likely
be looked at by a SOC analyst. It isn’t really something that involves
IR, but rather “is this thing my sensor generated good or bad?” Object 3 is for your IR people or your
CERT. Object 4 is likely distinct from the Report
object as we have it now, as it’s not likely to be in the same vein as
a ‘published report’, but rather, “Here are the series of questions
that US CERT makes me answer every time we have an ‘incident’”. Object 5 is basically what MISP has been
asking for. I believe Objects 1-3 roughly correlate
to the first three objects from the FireEye proposal of “Event”, “Alert”,
and “Investigation”. Object 5 is closer to their “Grouping” object.
All that being said, many of these tasks
are not currently done in STIX (if not most of them). In the diagram, we
have the TIP (in green) as being a separate object that lives alongside
the workflow, but isn’t really IN the workflow. That being said,
if we added objects 1, 2, 4, and 5, I think it could allow for easier data
flow into/out of a TIP. (I don’t think the IR object will ever be used
directly by the types of tools that produce that data, but maybe I’m wrong.)
Personally, I think the Event object as
it currently stands is somewhat of a combination of Object 2 and Object
3. If people agree that these are really separate objects, I think we could
scope out a few properties and turn the current Event object into Object
2 or Object 3 fairly easily (or easily split it into two objects). I think
Object 1 is out of scope for 2.1 (unless it’s already covered by sighting/Observed
Data). I think Object 4 is out of scope for 2.1. I think Object 5 will
be covered by the “collection vs. report” debate/object, for which we
should soon have a proposal. Thoughts are appreciated. Sarah Kelley Senior Cyber Threat Analyst Multi-State Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC)
31 Tech Valley Drive East Greenbush, NY 12061
sarah.kelley@cisecurity.org 518-266-3493 24x7 Security Operations
Center
SOC@cisecurity.org - 1-866-787-4722
This message and attachments may contain
confidential information. If it appears that this message was sent to you
by mistake, any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message and attachments is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. . . . . . ..... This message and attachments may
contain confidential information. If it appears that this message was sent
to you by mistake, any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying
of this message and attachments is strictly prohibited. Please notify the
sender immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments.
. . . . .